University suspends male student for consensual sexual encounter despite no victim

[Derec]

Moreover, it seems like if the point is to discourage this sort of relationship, at a minimum both should be punished. She, being the one in a position with University, should if anything be held to a higher standard.

As we have learned from feminist left championing the Swedish Model and being outraged over any suggestion that women should face any punishment for abortion (if made illegal), it is pretty clear that the feminist left is not keen on punishing women for anything involving sex. And holding any woman to a higher standard, be she a sex worker, university employee or Hillary Clinton is unacceptable because reasons.

 

[laughing dog]

First, this is not an expulsion but a suspension. Second, this particular case has nothing to do with suspension of due process rights or a lower burden of proof, because there is no dispute over the facts of the case. This is an example of a overzealous and mindless application of the letter of the rules. Technically, this student did rape his lover when he penetrated her with a naked penis, since she did not want unprotected sex. But since she was clearly okay with protected sex and since he immediately complied with her wishes, going ahead with any sort of disciplinary process over that technicality makes a mockery of the disciplinary process in general.

There is one minor issue... how did this ever get to the disciplinary process to begin with?

Good question. Another good question is how did the administration let this stand? I find it hard to believe that the teammates or the coach did not protest about this to a higher up or that some upper administrator did not put the stamp of approval on this overzealousness. The last thing any public university president wants is for her or his institution look this stupid to the public and to the legislature.

 

[J842P]

The university is a private institution and they can expel anyone they want if they decide the rules have been broken.

The lawsuit will be dismissed; the university is under no obligation to give due process to any student who is accused of sexual misconduct.

It is not private, it is a public institution.

 

[RavenSky]

As long as unfair expulsions target men the feminist left is fine with in. More than fine, they make the problem worse by federal government demanding colleges use lowest possible burden of proof and deprive accused male students of any due process rights.

First, this is not an expulsion but a suspension. Second, this particular case has nothing to do with suspension of due process rights or a lower burden of proof, because there is no dispute over the facts of the case. This is an example of a overzealous and mindless application of the letter of the rules. Technically, this student did rape his lover when he penetrated her with a naked penis, since she did not want unprotected sex. But since she was clearly okay with protected sex and since he immediately complied with her wishes, going ahead with any sort of disciplinary process over that technicality makes a mockery of the disciplinary process in general.

I tend to agree on this one LD. I can't figure out what the university is thinking, but it does sound like this particular young man is being wronged. The young woman has said repeatedly, in many different ways and at different times, that she was not raped.

I thought I saw a reference somewhere - but cannot find it again - that he was in some sort of supervisory position. That could potentially be a violation of university policy that prohibits faculty from making whoopy with students - but I may have misread that since I can't find it again. Everything else points to him being a student just like her.

Something is very wrong in this case. Maybe we don't have complete information, but from what we do have I think the university is way wrong this time.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Just in case it hasn't sunk in yet.

The university is a private institution and they can expel anyone they want if they decide the rules have been broken.

The lawsuit will be dismissed; the university is under no obligation to give due process to any student who is accused of sexual misconduct.

It is not private, it is a public institution.

The university is a private institution

I doubt it is with the word "State" in there.

The university is a private institution and they can expel anyone they want if they decide the rules have been broken.

The lawsuit will be dismissed; the university is under no obligation to give due process to any student who is accused of sexual misconduct.

But Colorado State University–Pueblo isn't a private institution/university.

- - - Updated - - -

First, this is not an expulsion but a suspension. Second, this particular case has nothing to do with suspension of due process rights or a lower burden of proof, because there is no dispute over the facts of the case. This is an example of a overzealous and mindless application of the letter of the rules. Technically, this student did rape his lover when he penetrated her with a naked penis, since she did not want unprotected sex. But since she was clearly okay with protected sex and since he immediately complied with her wishes, going ahead with any sort of disciplinary process over that technicality makes a mockery of the disciplinary process in general.

I tend to agree on this one LD. I can't figure out what the university is thinking, but it does sound like this particular young man is being wronged. The young woman has said repeatedly, in many different ways and at different times, that she was not raped.

I thought I saw a reference somewhere - but cannot find it again - that he was in some sort of supervisory position. That could potentially be a violation of university policy that prohibits faculty from making whoopy with students - but I may have misread that since I can't find it again. Everything else points to him being a student just like her.

Something is very wrong in this case. Maybe we don't have complete information, but from what we do have I think the university is way wrong this time.

I think everything hinges on the fact that this was a case to begin with. Why is it a case. If it were completely on the up and up, the board never hears about this, unless you have to submit forms for having sex at this school.

 

[couch_sloth]

Does it seem odd to anyone that she would even bring this up(to the investigators) if she was OK with the sexual encounter? Perhaps this is a case of her sending mixed signals to the university's investigators?

She agreed to sex provided he used a condom. This is not a mixed signal.

I mean why would she bring this up to the investigators? Seems like a rather foolish (or naive) thing to do if she didn't want to get him in trouble.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

. According to CSU-Pueblo’s internal investigation, obtained by CBS4, the woman told an investigator, “Grant was lying on top of me and I told him that I did not want to have sexual intercourse with him that is unprotected because I am not on any birth control. Although I told Grant no, Grant ended up penetrating me … and I told him to stop. He stopped and pulled out from me immediately. Grant then said to me that if he used a condom, would I be okay with that. I told Grant yes to the condom. Grant placed on the condom and we began to have protected sex at this point which I was okay with it.”

Does it seem odd to anyone that she would even bring this up(to the investigators) if she was OK with the sexual encounter? Perhaps this is a case of her sending mixed signals to the university's investigators?

And what evidence do we even have that she said that?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

First, this is not an expulsion but a suspension. Second, this particular case has nothing to do with suspension of due process rights or a lower burden of proof, because there is no dispute over the facts of the case. This is an example of a overzealous and mindless application of the letter of the rules. Technically, this student did rape his lover when he penetrated her with a naked penis, since she did not want unprotected sex. But since she was clearly okay with protected sex and since he immediately complied with her wishes, going ahead with any sort of disciplinary process over that technicality makes a mockery of the disciplinary process in general.

I tend to agree on this one LD. I can't figure out what the university is thinking, but it does sound like this particular young man is being wronged. The young woman has said repeatedly, in many different ways and at different times, that she was not raped.

I thought I saw a reference somewhere - but cannot find it again - that he was in some sort of supervisory position. That could potentially be a violation of university policy that prohibits faculty from making whoopy with students - but I may have misread that since I can't find it again. Everything else points to him being a student just like her.

Something is very wrong in this case. Maybe we don't have complete information, but from what we do have I think the university is way wrong this time.

You've got it backwards--she's the one in the supervisory position.

And the reason this case stands out is that the witch hunt didn't come from the woman but a third party, thus we have the two people who know the most about it saying it's a witch hunt rather than a he said/she said. It's just par for the course with university "justice" these days.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

You've got it backwards--she's the one in the supervisory position.

So you think exercise trainers are supervisors? or is there something very particular about this one that would make her a supervisor? was she grading his performance for example?

 

[laughing dog]

You've got it backwards--she's the one in the supervisory position.

And the reason this case stands out is that the witch hunt didn't come from the woman but a third party, thus we have the two people who know the most about it saying it's a witch hunt rather than a he said/she said. It's just par for the course with university "justice" these days.

I didn't realize you had access to university disciplinary cases and outcomes. Since you do, would you please provide some statistics so the rest of us can learn about this some more?

 

[RavenSky]

I tend to agree on this one LD. I can't figure out what the university is thinking, but it does sound like this particular young man is being wronged. The young woman has said repeatedly, in many different ways and at different times, that she was not raped.

I thought I saw a reference somewhere - but cannot find it again - that he was in some sort of supervisory position. That could potentially be a violation of university policy that prohibits faculty from making whoopy with students - but I may have misread that since I can't find it again. Everything else points to him being a student just like her.

Something is very wrong in this case. Maybe we don't have complete information, but from what we do have I think the university is way wrong this time.

You've got it backwards--she's the one in the supervisory position...

Well that is even weirder, then.

ETA: Having now also looked at the second article that was linked by Arctish (I think it was), I'm wondering if it being an interracial relationship has anything to do with what is happening to this young man

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

It sounds like there could be an expensive court case based on defamation of character here.

 

[Arctish]

You've got it backwards--she's the one in the supervisory position...

Well that is even weirder, then.

ETA: Having now also looked at the second article that was linked by Arctish (I think it was), I'm wondering if it being an interracial relationship has anything to do with what is happening to this young man

I don't think so. There's something that doesn't add up here, but I don't see that race has anything to do with it. I think we're missing some information.

The female student (I'll call her Doe) told a friend about her sexual encounter with Neal. The friend reported it to the university. So the obvious question is why would the friend do that? Was she trying to stir up trouble? Was sex between athletes and trainers not allowed? Or was the friend alarmed because Doe told her:

“Grant was lying on top of me and I told him that I did not want to have sexual intercourse with him that is unprotected because I am not on any birth control. Although I told Grant no, Grant ended up penetrating me… and I told him to stop.

How in hell did Grant end up penetrating her after she told him she didn't want unprotected sex? He couldn't have fallen penis-first into her - he was already lying on top of her. So how did his bare naked penis get into her vagina? Were her lips saying 'no, no' while his penis was saying 'yes, yes' and he picked the wrong one to listen to? Was he testing her resolve? Is he one of those people who push past others' objections and when they have to desist they claim they're offering a compromise? Or was it truly accidental? However it happened, it certainly sounds like there was no prior consent, much less affirmative consent.

Doe may have decided it wasn't a big deal since Grant stopped and put on a condom, but that doesn't mean the university's actions are completely without cause.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Does it seem odd to anyone that she would even bring this up(to the investigators) if she was OK with the sexual encounter? Perhaps this is a case of her sending mixed signals to the university's investigators?

I'm quite a bit interested in the "..." part of that quote. It is like when Bruce Banner all of a sudden has control over becoming the Hulk in The Avengers. It was a ... moment.

Let's see if it passes the Seinfeld Test.

Susan: "I can't believe this happened. I ended up having sex with George Costanza."
Eliane: "Really?! George?"
Elaine: "So...how was it?"
Susan: "I was just laying there and then he layed down on top of me. He's kind of heavy which is why he needs to exercise more. He didn't even take his clothes or shoes off, just whipped it out."
Elaine: "Really? I never thought of George as a whipper-outer. I thought he'd be more of a wooer-upper."
Susan: "No, he didn't try to woo me at all, he just whipped it out and I told him to put on a condom. Then, he complained that the room was cold. Yada, yada, yada, he slipped it in."
Elaine: "Wait, you can't just yada, yada, yada over that."
Susan: "Well I was okay with it."

Later on...
Elaine: "and so then she said she was 'okay' with it. O-K with it."
Jerry: "What the heck does that mean?"
Elaine: "I know, right. I'd have cut him off after that. No sex for you!"

 

[whichphilosophy]

Well that is even weirder, then.

ETA: Having now also looked at the second article that was linked by Arctish (I think it was), I'm wondering if it being an interracial relationship has anything to do with what is happening to this young man

I don't think so. There's something that doesn't add up here, but I don't see that race has anything to do with it. I think we're missing some information.

The female student (I'll call her Doe) told a friend about her sexual encounter with Neal. The friend reported it to the university. So the obvious question is why would the friend do that? Was she trying to stir up trouble? Was sex between athletes and trainers not allowed? Or was the friend alarmed because Doe told her:

“Grant was lying on top of me and I told him that I did not want to have sexual intercourse with him that is unprotected because I am not on any birth control. Although I told Grant no, Grant ended up penetrating me… and I told him to stop.

How in hell did Grant end up penetrating her after she told him she didn't want unprotected sex? He couldn't have fallen penis-first into her - he was already lying on top of her. So how did his bare naked penis get into her vagina? Were her lips saying 'no, no' while his penis was saying 'yes, yes' and he picked the wrong one to listen to? Was he testing her resolve? Is he one of those people who push past others' objections and when they have to desist they claim they're offering a compromise? Or was it truly accidental? However it happened, it certainly sounds like there was no prior consent, much less affirmative consent.

Doe may have decided it wasn't a big deal since Grant stopped and put on a condom, but that doesn't mean the university's actions are completely without cause.

If she wasn't then she could have filed rape charges. Technically one mat argue the first act could raise a case for rape but she then changed her mind once protection was used. If she didn't want to press charges and it was not a problem I can't see this going further through a court system. Universities may have rules but they should also be objective based on the circumstances.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You've got it backwards--she's the one in the supervisory position.

And the reason this case stands out is that the witch hunt didn't come from the woman but a third party, thus we have the two people who know the most about it saying it's a witch hunt rather than a he said/she said. It's just par for the course with university "justice" these days.

I didn't realize you had access to university disciplinary cases and outcomes. Since you do, would you please provide some statistics so the rest of us can learn about this some more?

Did nobody read the article?!?!

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You've got it backwards--she's the one in the supervisory position...

Well that is even weirder, then.

ETA: Having now also looked at the second article that was linked by Arctish (I think it was), I'm wondering if it being an interracial relationship has anything to do with what is happening to this young man

Why do I have the nasty feeling you're right?

 

[laughing dog]

I didn't realize you had access to university disciplinary cases and outcomes. Since you do, would you please provide some statistics so the rest of us can learn about this some more?

Did nobody read the article?!?!

Obtuseness does not become you. University disciplanary cases and their outcomes are not public information unless someone makes them public. So, cases like the OP do not necessarily represent the usual university disciplinary case or outcome. In order for you to make a claim of fact - just par for the course with university "justice" these days - you would need access to data on university disciplinary cases and their outcomes. The cases and their outcomes are not public information unless someone makes them public.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Did nobody read the article?!?!

Obtuseness does not become you. University disciplanary cases and their outcomes are not public information unless someone makes them public. So, cases like the OP do not necessarily represent the usual university disciplinary case or outcome. In order for you to make a claim of fact - just par for the course with university "justice" these days - you would need access to data on university disciplinary cases and their outcomes. The cases and their outcomes are not public information unless someone makes them public.

What I was referring to was the article said she was training him and that such relationships were frowned upon.

 

[laughing dog]

What I was referring to was the article said she was training him and that such relationships were frowned upon.

Not with "It's just par for the course with university "justice" these days."